| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Garnier: One of the provisions in new clause 5 is novel in this area of the law, although it has been seen in conspiracy law relating to terrorism. If the clause took its place on the statute book, it would catch those who commit offences of procuring anywhere in the world if they are British subjects and can be brought within our jurisdiction. That would be a useful addition to the criminal calendar. Many people leave the United Kingdom to go abroad to commit what are loosely called sex tourism offences. Despite the private Member's Bill that passed to the statute book either this Parliament or at the end of the last Parliament, there is a role for the House in passing Government legislation to deal with extraterritorial sex offences committed by British subjects.
7.15 pm
Mr. Lidington: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend. He has drawn the attention of the House to an important detail of the new clause.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley drew attention to a case in which a man approached the proprietor of a sex shop, seeking child pornography and "live action", as he termed it--in other words, sex with children. The police were able to arrest him, but they had a difficult time making charges stick because the only law available to them to draw on for a charge was that which involved a charge of the man having procured a girl, and having done so specifically with the intention of having sexual intercourse.
The new clause is designed to cover procuring children for any type of sexual offence, rather than for sexual intercourse itself under the law as it stands. It would help the police in establishing the evidence that they need to deal with such offenders, who are a menace to society.
Jackie Ballard: Having read the new clause, I raise a genuine query. The proposal provides that it will be
- an offence for a person to . . . procure a child under the age of sixteen for the purposes of sexual activity.
Mr. Lidington: I believe that we should have laws that allow us to provide protection for children that we as legislators believe to be appropriate. I shall examine the detail in the light of what the hon. Lady has said.
Mr. Garnier: It is not my job to give the House a lecture on double actionability. However, one of the possible answers is that a British defendant might be caught only if the crime that he committed was a crime both in the foreign jurisdiction and in this jurisdiction. If the two were not able to be brought on that basis, there would be no offence. However, it is open to Parliament to make laws that it thinks fit. If the House says that it will be an offence for anyone to act in the manner set out in the new clause, subject to any better advice from the Minister of State, who is an extremely experienced barrister in criminal cases, I think that the law will be as stated in the new clause.
Mr. Lidington: New clause 6 deals with indecent conduct towards children. Again, we think that the present law is complex and inadequate. The police can use the present law to protect boys under the age of 16, but 14 to 16-year-olds can be protected only if they have been assaulted by a man. As I understand it, girls of 14 to 16 are not protected at all. The new clause would both simplify and update the law. It would include all children regardless of gender, and it would increase the maximum penalty to 10 years. We believe that the clause would allow police to arrest offenders at stages prior to their having physically abused a child. Such preparatory offences already exist in other areas of criminal law.
Finally, new clause 7 deals with the problem of the use of computers to promote paedophile activity. This is something about which a number of the organisations involved with internet service providers have expressed concern. The chief executive of the Internet Watch Foundation said recently that 90 per cent. of the hotline
calls which its switchboard received were about child pornography. He added that the websites were not the main problem and said:
- By and large, Websites are legal. Most of the illegal material is in the much less controlled area of Usenet news.
- the new frontier is Chat Rooms, which are in real time. So what goes on there is not susceptible to the sort of process we have of getting material reported, looking at it and then investigating.
Thankfully, the girl's mother, who was suspicious of this unknown teenage boy, went with her daughter and was horrified when she found out that there was a middle-aged man behind the messages. The case was described by the chief inspector who investigated it as most disturbing. He said that the girl could have been placed at considerable risk.
In the recent Lockley case, Judge Peter Fingret at the Old Bailey called on the Government to seize the opportunity for an overhaul of the law on child pornography and to deal in particular with the problem of paedophiles using the internet.
We believe that it is time for such changes to be introduced and we hope that the debate that we have initiated can play a part in bringing that about. We look to the Government to tell us how they plan to deal with the issue, which we believe is a matter of increasing concern to many of our constituents.
Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley): I hope that I can be succinct, even though we are dealing with six new clauses. The House will recognise the importance of this subject. When we were discussing a four-legged predator, we had a full House--presumably because there was disagreement--whereas now that we are considering two-legged predators who damage babies and children, the House is virtually empty, no doubt because there is general agreement at least on the idea behind the new clauses.
The idea is to broaden the action that the police can take and to increase the penalties for criminals who make little apparent effort to rehabilitate themselves. Perhaps most important, we have suggested changes to make the system proactive.
New clause 2 would change the maximum sentence and create a serious arrestable offence, giving the police a little more clout in trying to deal with paedophiles. As I understand it, at present, if the police have a warrant to search the home of a suspected paedophile, that person can just up sticks and walk without the police having any possibility of holding him. I understand that, if the offence were made a serious arrestable offence, the individual would be required to stay with the police if they so required it.
Most serious arrestable offences carry sentences of 10 or 15 years to life. Sexual offences of this class against adults carry maximum sentences of 10 years or more. That
might answer the question put by the hon. Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard). I hope that the House will agree that children should have at least the same protection as adults--arguably more, because they are more vulnerable.The photographs are appalling. The aim of the photographs of the fox that were referred to earlier is to shock, whereas, in terms of physical and psychological damage to babies and children, the photographs distributed by paedophiles are unprintable and cannot be shown in the newspapers. Such pictures would certainly change the mind of anyone who felt soft on the issue. Those who take such photographs are forcing children to take part in sexual acts without their consent. Many children never properly recover from the psychological and physical trauma inflicted on them at such a young age. Many countries take a different approach from ours. Ireland has a maximum sentence of 14 years, and some of the states of the United States have a maximum of 20 years.
Modern technology enables paedophiles to feed and stimulate their and others' fantasies. We must recognise that and increase the sentence available to try to stimulate thinking towards stopping such action.
New clause 3 is in the classic "Three strikes and you're out" mode. It is well known that paedophiles are among the most difficult of criminals to rehabilitate. We need to approach the matter by saying that, if they persist, rehabilitation has failed, and we need to protect society by putting them away for a bit longer. We are not only protecting society; we are protecting its most vulnerable members--hence the idea of an incremental increase or "three strikes and you're out".
New clause 4 would extend to a prison term of 10 years or more or fine or both the maximum sentence on conviction, on indictment, for possession of child pornography. The Gary Glitter case shocked many people. This Glitter individual had tens of thousands of pornographic pictures of children, some of whom were under two, yet he received only a six-month sentence--that was the maximum--and spent a very short time in prison. That is not unusual. It is sad, and reflects badly on us.
United Kingdom law should view the possession of such quantities of pornography in the same way as it perceives those who handle and receive stolen goods. If an individual is convicted of handling or receiving stolen goods, the maximum sentence is 14 years. For a pornographic photograph to be taken, the child has to have been abused. The stealing of goods carries a lower maximum of 10 years, which reflects the approach of cutting off the source that attracts the sellers and producers.
I find it hard to believe those who collect child pornography when they say that they do not want to abuse children. Ray Wyre, who works with convicted paedophiles, is considered an authority and often quoted. In David Howitt's "Paedophiles and Sexual Offences Against Children", Wyre makes it clear that
- If a man buys "child pornography" he does so for one reason and one reason alone . . . The fact that he may not have done so is more likely to be a question of availability or the fear of getting caught than revulsion at the very concept.
New clause 5 is a complex clause that would update and broaden the Sexual Offences Act 1956 by recognising that the age of consent is universally set at 16, not 21, and--
unlike Members of Parliament in 1956 or thereabouts--recognising that protection against paedophiles should apply to boys as well as girls: in other words, it would make the legislation gender-neutral.The new clause would replace "sexual intercourse" with "sexual activity", because some paedophiles have dodged prosecution by virtue of the fact that, legally speaking, their activities have fallen just short of sexual intercourse.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |